Indigent Defense Act Cases, 2015.

Various cases arose under the Indigent Defense Act. The various cases discussed the differences in procedure depending on the the date in which indigent claims were made relative to the effective date of changes to the statute.

Indigent Defense Act Cases, 2015

The Utah legislature amended the Indigent Defense Act in 2012 in response to State v. Parduhn, decided by the Utah Supreme Court the year prior. The aim was bundling all defense services together and making them available solely through LDA.  The legislature intended LDA to be the exclusive source for all indigent defense services—including counsel and resources. These five cases arrived at the Supreme Court through interlocutory appeals and involve defendants which made claims under the pre-2012 version of the Indigent Defense Act.

            In State v. Perez and State v.Folsom, the Court found for the defendant because they had filed their motions for counsel under the IDA before the IDA amendments were scheduled to start, and the law does not govern retroactively. In State v. Earl, State v.Steinly, and State v.Rodriguez-Ramirez, also about the IDA, the county prevails because the defendant’s motions were filed after the effective date and the amendment was constitutional. There is consistent language throughout the cases.

“A defendant who opts out of public representation has also opted out of public defense resources, and nothing in the Constitution requires a different result.” State v. Earl, 2015 UT 12.

The defendant’s argument “fails as a matter of law because the IDA is not regulating the events giving rise to the criminal charges at issue.” The defendant’s right to indigent assistance vested after the IDA amendment went into effect, therefore the defendant is subject to the new version of the law. Also, the right to counsel, as guaranteed by the 6^th Amendment, does not guarantee a “right to government funded counsel.” State v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 2015 UT 16

Even if the Public Defender‘s Association could not qualify as a “defense services provider” under Utah Code section 77-32-201(4), the county had satisfied the statute in an alternative manner, by establishing a “county legal defender‘s office” under Utah Code section 77-32-302(2)(a). See State v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 2015 UT 16.